How WebRTC Has Moved Forward

WebRTC has seen traction in its adoption within new and important applications, and by key tech leaders and other businesses.

If you know anything about the real-time communications technology WebRTC, you probably already know Google has been its key champion. And Google uses the technology in various areas. (Although, it should be noted that Google’s Chrome 57 release has been causing some headaches on this front, as GitHub conversations indicate many people have experienced WebRTC errors on Chrome 57).

However, Google is most certainly not the only tech giant bolstering WebRTC.

Just last month, Microsoft added support for WebRTC in its Edge browser.

And Snapchat employs WebRTC in its video calling feature, Chad Hart, head of strategic products at Voxbone, noted in a 2016 blog.

“WebRTC truly is moving beyond the term du-jour to an indispensable technology powering today’s hottest communications applications,” Hart wrote. “It is well on its way to being a technology you can explain to your friends and family via the many apps they use all the time.”

Dave Michels of Talking Pointz last year noted that WebRTC has been “a year away” from being mainstream for more than five years and that the definition of WebRTC is murky. He even, in a September 2016 blog, commented that “not only am I seeing many more applications, but they actually work.”

Hart of Voxbone went further yet in emphasizing the advancement WebRTC has made with his comment that “WebRTC is doing far better than any other previous VoIP technology at the five-year mark.” In this case, he was comparing WebRTC to IMS, RCS, VoLTE, and Skype. (See his chart below).

 “Of late, the market is witnessing technological advancements and the cost-competitive nature of WebRTC,” Amit Sharma of Technavio said in a January 2016 report. “Since WebRTC is an open source technology, it enables web-based real-time communication that is easy and less expensive to implement. Consequently, users have to pay only for pre-built libraries and cloud-based services, which is very low when compared to other alternatives.”